Community Engagement During Contaminated Site Cleanups

Download this report as a PDF >>

Toxic substances in the environment endanger human health until someone cleans them up. These pollutants can contaminate entire ecosystems, including soil, water, sediment and air. If left untreated, such problems damage the environment further by entering the water supply, emitting toxic gases that intrude into buildings, and degrading the soil so it becomes unsafe to live upon.

The state’s current roster lists 6,378 sites in need of cleanup. Some are in the process of remediation or cleanup, others are being monitored to determine if further work is needed. These risks to human health are not uniformly distributed across the state’s population, however, and vulnerable populations are disproportionately exposed to the problems of contaminated sites.

When those responsible are ready to clean up such sites, certain state and federal laws set out requirements for community engagement. These requirements are intended to create and sustain trusting relationships by facilitating two-way communication around local perspectives.

This audit examined how Ecology collects and incorporates feedback from the communities and Native American tribes living close by contaminated sites in Washington. It aimed to determine if there is inequity in how Ecology engages with communities near cleanup sites. The audit also considered the role of the Department of Health concerning Ecology’s cleanup efforts.

Read a three-page summary of the report. (PDF)

Leer el informe completo en español. (PDF)  Leer un resumen del informe en español. (PDF)

Report Number 1036880 Report Credits

Key results

The audit found that the Department of Ecology currently manages just 493 (8%) of the roughly 6,300 active contaminated sites in Washington. When Ecology does manage a project, for the most part it engages effectively with surrounding communities and affected Native American tribal governments in the cleanup process. Nonetheless, people we interviewed who had experience working with the agency noted areas where it could improve its efforts. This audit includes recommendations to help it do so.

The cleanup and community engagement requirements are different when third parties oversee cleanup projects. It is appropriate that those responsible for the contamination of the land should be responsible for its cleanup. However, unlike Ecology, third parties face no requirement to engage with the local community.

Washington’s approach to environmental justice directs agencies, including the Department of Ecology, to ensure they facilitate the equitable participation of marginalized people, such as those who work and live near places affected by contamination. The report suggests that Ecology should consider how an equitable approach to engagement can become the norm for higher risk site cleanup efforts, such as the 212 sites auditors identified, not just the comparatively small share under the state’s direct supervision.

Background

Federal and state laws govern how the Department of Ecology should clean up contaminated sites. But beyond the physical act of remediating the problem, these laws also define the nature and scope of community and tribal engagement Ecology must perform during the cleanup process. Three laws in particular underpin Ecology’s responsibilities:

  • The federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976
  • The state Model Toxics Control Act of 1989
  • The state Healthy Environment for All Act of 2021

The audit noted that Washington state agencies have documented more than 14,000 known or suspected contaminated sites in our state. About 7,900 have been addressed or do not need cleanup actions at present.

Contaminated sites are primarily concentrated in communities with vulnerable populations and can lead to worse health outcomes for the people living there. For these reasons, this audit aimed to determine if there is inequity in how Ecology engages with communities near cleanup sites.

Third-party site management

During our audit work, we found an underlying issue we did not expect: that Ecology is currently responsible for delivering community and/or tribal engagement activities on only a small fraction of the 6,378 active cleanup sites listed on the agency’s website.

Ecology currently manages 8% of active contaminated sites, where it provides required community engagement. These are sites where Ecology either conducts the cleanup or supervises the cleanup by another party under a legal agreement. The majority of sites – 57% – are managed by third parties, without Ecology’s participation in or oversight of community engagement that would otherwise have been required by the work under the Model Toxics Control Act. This means the communities affected by the 212 higher risk sites managed by third parties may not receive such activities, nor will Ecology know what community engagement the third parties might have conducted, because the agency is not required by law to perform such oversight.

In addition, we found information about independently managed sites was difficult to obtain on Ecology’s website. Another 1,600 contaminated sites lack plans for when, how or who will clean them up. Furthermore, our analysis found that 125 of these planless sites have been ranked as either high risk or moderate-high risk.

Improving interagency efforts

Improved coordination between Ecology and Health, as well as with local health departments, could help keep local communities safe. We found agency collaborative efforts appeared to be informal, while staff guidance and training also appeared minimal. Poor coordination between Ecology and local health departments can contribute to health hazards for community members.

Experiences varied widely

Although Ecology followed many required and leading practices, we learned that local community experiences varied widely. Ecology met most legal requirements and leading practices at six cleanup sites we evaluated for community engagement activities, with two exceptions:

  • At the start of a cleanup project, Ecology could improve its community research; at the end of the project, it could more consistently evaluate its community engagement activities.
  • Our community interviews revealed some dissatisfaction about Ecology’s engagement with people affected by cleanups. Interviewees sought tailored engagement efforts that more directly addressed their needs.

Ecology’s lack of a uniform approach in handling other aspects of community outreach likely contributed to their concerns.

Some tribes wanted improvements

Multiple laws impose unique requirements regarding Ecology’s engagement with tribes. To learn about the experiences members of different tribes had with Ecology and whether legal requirements were being met, we invited 29 federally recognized tribes in Washington, and four from bordering states with interests in natural, cultural and archaeological resources, to share their experiences with Ecology at cleanup sites. We did this through a focus group or online survey.

While some tribal representatives said Ecology’s level of engagement met their needs, others said they needed more and earlier in the cleanup process. Most participants said the agency’s engagement met their tribe’s needs, while responses varied on whether those engagement activities felt equitable. Ecology’s early engagement efforts met most participants’ needs. Finally, tribal representatives had ideas for how the agency could improve its engagement efforts. Ecology staff said they are already making changes to address new legal requirements.  

Recommendations

We made a series of recommendations to the Department of Ecology to address a lack of community engagement activities at independently managed contaminated sites. We also recommend the agency further improve community and tribal engagement at site cleanups conducted or supervised by Ecology. We recommended it ensure community engagement occurs at high risk and moderate-high risk sites managed by third parties. Finally, we recommended Ecology establish a proactive plan for evaluating the highest risk sites that do not yet have a cleanup plan.

We also made recommendations to address inconsistent coordination between the departments of Ecology and Health.